As Secretary-General Annan prepares to leave his post at the United Nations, a mystery is surfacing surrounding his apartment on Roosevelt Island, subsidized by New York taxpayers, which is still in use by the family of his brother, Kobina Annan.

The apartment was where Mr. Annan and his wife lived before 1997, when he became secretary-general. The Roosevelt Island home is part of an estate of low-rent state-regulated housing. For years, the Annans saved considerable sums by occupying an apartment meant to help financially strapped low- to moderate-income New York families.

One question Mr. Annan has never addressed is why he and his wife felt comfortable availing themselves of this generous arrangement. Another is how it is that, since Mr. Annan and his wife left that Roosevelt Island apartment 10 years ago to move into the rent-free residence on Sutton Place supplied to the secretary-general, their former low-rent apartment was handed over to be occupied by the family of Mr. Annan's brother.

...the current effective taxpayer subsidy for the Annan apartment could, by a conservative estimate, amount to upward of $10,000 a year, or even as much as twice that, which, over a decade, adds up to a significant sum.

(BTW, Mr. Annan's brother Kobina is Ghana's ambassador to Marocco. Also, he seems to have a knack for making money, as this report on his involvement in the oil-for-food scheme shows.)

For some strange reason, I cannot find any mention of this smart rent saving scheme of Kofi in the German media...

It has happened before: Members of the German media have tried and convicted American soldiers of alleged war crimes before they ever go to trial. The latest case involves an article featured on the homepage of ARD tagesschau, a large, state-sponsored news program:

The headline above speaks of a "massacre" even though it has not been conclusively determined that the killings were part of an actual massacre. Additionally, the lead paragraph claims that the 24 civilians involved were "murdered." Certainly, if an investigation and trial determine that the soldiers in question are, in fact, guilty of murder and participation in a massacre, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But the bottom line is that the German media has no right to conclusively label the killings murders (and thus imply that the soldiers are murderers) until all the facts are known and until said soldiers are found guilty and convicted.

The fact that other media outlets, including ZDF and the BBC, have chosen their words more carefully further highlights ARD's blatant bias and lack of professionalism. Just compare this ZDF piece to the ARD piece. You will notice that ZDF has a question mark after the word "massacre" and reports that the soldiers allegedly killed the 24 civilians in an act of revenge and that they may well stand trial for murder. In other words, ARD immediately jumped to the conclusion that the soldiers are murderers, ZDF did not.

Ironically, the same ARD journalists who can't seem to stop screaming about the denial of judicial due process to Guantanamo inmates are not even willing to afford the same privilege to American soldiers, despite the fact that American soldiers stood guard for decades and guaranteed their freedom of speech during the Cold War.In the ARD world, Guantanamo terrorists are innocent until proven guilty, American soldiers guilty until proven innocent. The agenda of ARD and many on the Angry Left in dealing with the alleged massacre is best summarized in the following passage by John Gibson:

"It was last November and according to the story that is now shaping up, Marines went on a rampage after one of their own was killed by a roadside bomb. In the end, it appears they killed 24 people, including women and children.

The original story of the incident said the civilians were also killed by the roadside bomb that killed the Marine. That appears to be not true and the military is running a full-scale investigation. If it turns out to be not true, then the crime is doubled: first the massacre, then the cover-up.

I'm against massacres of civilians — I think we all are. I'm against cover-ups — you probably are too.

But I'm also against taking an incident in which our troops overreact and commit an arguably criminal act and making it stand for the entire war. The war in Iraq is not the story of massacres by Americans. If Iraqis know their own history they know this is true. Massacres have been committed in Iraq by warring parties for millennia piled on millennia. This is the part of the world that was in on the massacre game early, played it often and the last character to be up to his eyeballs in massacres was the very guy we went in to regime change: Saddam Hussein himself.

Those people who oppose the war and want to make those who supported it pay with shame, embarrassment and a complete loss of credibility and reputation, want desperately for this massacre — if it turns out to be what happened — to be the name this war is known by forever. Haditha — My Lai — Iraq — Vietnam: it all fits together neatly in a slime fest designed to win elections and set the direction of the history books.

The Iraq War may not be the best war we ever fought. When the dust settles we'll know for sure. But it accomplished a great goal that no one else had managed for the last 15 years at least: ridding the world of Saddam. No matter what the political spinners say, that was a great thing. And the Iraq War should be known for that fact — Saddam is gone — not for one incident of alleged revenge killing in a place called Haditha." (emphasis ours)

That is exactly what this is about for ARD, SPIEGEL ONLINE, Stern, SZ and other members of the anti-American German media establishment. This is about shaming the United States of America and those who supported the war, regardless of the facts, right or wrong. This is about seizing the moral high ground, pure and simple. The killing of two dozen Iraqi civilians suddenly matters to the German media elite. Why? Because it has the potential to discredit the United States, Bush and supporters of the war. Conversely, the same media cynics stood by and largely ignored the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians during the Hussein regime. Today they stand by and ignore the fact that their own government continues to promote trade with a government guilty of an ongoing campaign of mass murder in Sudan.

Finally, to top it all off, Germany's media cynics continue to blatantly mislead the German people by insinuating that the American media is somehow in bed with the Bush administration and only presenting a heroic view of the war that ignores the suffering. The most recent examples come from correspondents Udo Lielischkies of ARD in Washington (who claims the US media is only presenting a one-sided, heroic view of the war) and Sebastian Heinzel of SPIEGEL ONLINE in New York (who claims that almost nothing in American society or media exists to remind people of the war). Apparently these "journalists" just haven't seen the daily television news or read many newspapers while in the United States. They must have missed the thousands and thousands of articles and televised news features on bombings, beheadings, killings and kidnappings in Iraq run day for day for day in the US media with no positive story in sight. They must have missed all of Michael Moore's books and films, (quite an accomplishment for a German!) They must have missed Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal and Cindy Sheehan and Air America. They must have missed George Clooney's Syriana. They must have missed the recent parade of retired generals calling for Don Rumsfeld's head. They must have missed John Murtha and Cobra II. They must have missed the daily casualty count on CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC and every other significant news network in the United States.

Simply put: The "journalists" in question must be blind, deaf and dumb. Or they must be lying our their asses to the German people. We strongly suspect it's the latter...

UPDATE #2: Below is ARD's confusing new homepage summary of its latest Haditha piece. The headline calls the Haditha incident a "massacre" while the introductory paragraph that follows speaks of an "alleged massacre." So which is it at this point? As a reader, you really wouldn't know by looking at tagesschau online.

Unfortunately, ARD continues to call the 24 killings "murder." Again, whether it was murder or not ought to be determined by the appropriate legal and investigative authorities, not by the mainstream media or anyone else.

UPDATE #3: American troops are also guilty until proven innocent at SPIEGEL ONLINE. The Haditha incident has given SPON and other members of the Angry Left a new excuse to make further brain-dead comparisons to Vietnam.

UPDATE #4: Now members of the German media are referring to wide segments of the US military as "White Trash." Where does this end...?

Davids Medienkritik has delivered examples of German media bias on a daily basis for nearly three years. But some readers still wonder whether there really is a larger pattern of anti-Americanism or whether we are we just "cherry picking" the negative. Well, the international media research institute "Medien Tenor" has just released (another) study that reaffirms what we've suspected for quite some time. In the summary of a newsletter entitled, "Bush has a difficult standing among Europe's journalists," the institute reports (translated):

"International Media Tenor Analysis: ARD and ZDF see the USA most Critically

Bonn. In January 2006 the proportion of "anti-American" reporting rose noticeably in the most influential European media. The reason was, above all, increased media attention on the Iraq conflict as well as the relations of the USA with Syria, Iran and Palestine. This is the result of an international analysis of the Bonn-based media research institute Media Tenor. Also in Asian media, that otherwise report in a balanced manner, journalists evaluated the USA more negatively than usual. Important topics there were, among other things, the US air bases in Japan and Google's involvement in China. The media analysis for the Middle East provided results that indicated the Arab language television broadcaster Al Jazeera showed small improvement in its evaluation of the USA. Print media, on the other hand, maintained their negative position in light of the Iraq conflict.

Along with President Bush, the international media viewed the US military especially critically in January 2006. That was also the case for all of 2005, as the Media Tenor analysis showed. During the entire past year, conflicts dominated the news, with primary focus on Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran and Syria. The reporting in Europe was especially critical of the US in 2005 at the "ARD Tagesthemen" and the "ZDF heute/journal," followed by the British media "The Times" and "6 O'Clock News" on BBC1. In the French media, on the other hand, the image of the US improved somewhat. While the critical position of the journalists towards Bush was an important cause of the overall negative value of the USA in 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was primarily presented either positively or neutrally. Only in the Arab language media in January 2006 showed a somewhat more negative tone in reporting on Rice.

Note that, of those media analyzed, the most US critical media in all Europe were Germany's two largest, state-sponsored television news broadcasts. Unfortunately, many Germans view these same state media as impartial and unbiased because they are (supposedly) independent of commercial interests. But they are necessarily dependent on the German government via the German taxpayer. And that means our German public television friends rely mightily on politicians who support continued and increasing levels of taxation (through the GEZ* fee and other taxes) to support, protect and expand their budgets, personnel and influence.

Not surprisingly, there is a deadly aversion against those who would so much as suggest cutting or even eliminating the taxes flowing through the umbilical cord. America, with its diverse, rough-and-tumble, private-sector media and emaciated public broadcasting, is seen as an anathema. There is great favoritism in Germany towards (and willingness to forgive/circle-the-wagons around) those who staunchly support taxation for public broadcasting. They tend to find themselves left of center: The SPD, the Greens, the PDS/WASG and sometimes the CDU**. These parties are populated with, and led by, the same 68ers who shared formative experiences with those sitting behind the editors' desks of so many German newsrooms today. There is a clear but unspoken symbiotic relationship at work. The result is political bias. The lack of influential alternative media only exacerbates the problem, especially when it comes to foreign reporting.

An NTV correspondent recently remarked that German media displayed a diversity of opinion. After all there are those who favor the SPD (Social Democrats) and those who favor the more conservative Union parties and so on. Absolutely right: There is an ample supply of commentary across the German political spectrum when it comes to internal, domestic politics, (although we would contend that there is still a bias towards the SPD and Greens.) But the picture is very different when it comes to reporting on the United States and other foreign countries: Here a shrill, extreme monotone dominates the media landscape. And the loudest, shrillest voices radiate from the usual suspects, some of them well-respected news sources within Germany. Sadly, these extremists are also influential opinion-shapers. Add to that a palpable German cultural skepticism towards foreigners. The result? Many Germans' views of the US consist of a regurgitated amalgamation of negative media reports, Hollywood flicks and fast-food legends. (Yuck!) Those who have lived in the US or actually know Americans tend to be most immune.

So what can we do to counteract the anti-American bias in German media and society? Here are a few suggestions.

Increase the influence, reach, and number of German-language blogs, particularly those with a media critical attitude. That includes blogs of all political persuasions. Additionally, increase other media alternatives with a more balanced view of the United States and other foreign nations within Germany, possibly via talk radio, television or printed material.

Increase funding (public and private on both sides of the Atlantic) for exchange programs so that more Germans can visit the United States and see the nation and its people for themselves. There is no better way to circumvent and short-circuit the stereotypes and biased reporting. The same goes for Americans. More Americans ought to learn German and participate in exchanges to Germany.

The US government should stop spending public affairs money on art exhibits and ballet excursions and start spending it on building a staff of professionals dedicated to countering and responding to bias in the German media. That means hiring people fluent in German (preferably German citizens) who can go on all the German talk shows and news programs and counter the anti-American bias on a regular basis. You can reach 1,000 people with an art exhibit; you can reach millions with a television appearance. It also wouldn't hurt if the US Ambassador to Germany actually spoke German!

Provide increased access to US government officials for relatively unbiased German media such as Die Welt and Focus. Also continue to engage biased media including SPIEGEL, ARD and ZDF, but do so very carefully and respond aggressively and proactively should they pull a stunt such as the recent Karen Hughes interview debacle. That could include formally complaining to German diplomats and politicians. (Just to be clear: We are not blaming Undersecretary Hughes for what happened, it was clearly SPIEGEL's fault.)

(*For those of you who have never owned a television or radio in Germany, the GEZ fee is a mandatory fixed tax on everyone who owns a television or radio used to fund public broadcasting. Government bureaucrats are actually sent door to door to enforce its payment.)

(** The SPD are the Social Democrats (Ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's party); the PDS/WASG is Germany's new far-left party; the CDU is the Christian Democrat party (Chancellor Angela Merkel's party) which is viewed as "conservative" by German standards but still favors big social-welfare spending.)

Update from David: How timely: today (Sunday, March 19, 2006) on WELTSPIEGEL (one of German public tv's most venomous anti-American programmes): a report on a phony solidarity action of WELTSPIEGEL for "poor Americans". Quote: "In the USA in winter time and again old folks freeze to death in their beds.". WELTSPIEGEL was preceeded on ARD by a heart wrenching report "Tookie and the Terminator" about the execution of a saint: Mr. Tookie Williams. Was the report biased? Well, somewhat... I would guess that it was 100 percent in favor of Tookie Williams and 0 percent in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger. And of course - capital punishment in the U.S. was criticized with the usual fervor. Your typical anti-American Sunday menu on Germany's public tv...

Recently, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela began an expensive propaganda campaign to distribute heating oil at reduced cost to low-income families along the east coast of the United States, particularly in Boston and New York. OK. So what's wrong with that? After all, heating oil prices have been rising rapidly of late. What's the big deal?

Well, for starters, Venezuela’s poor are exponentially worse off than their US counterparts. According to Venezuela’s own National Statistics Institute (INE), over half of the country, or 54% of all Venezuelans, live in poverty and 25% live in extreme poverty. Despite being the world's fifth largest oil exporter, Venezuela's per capita GDP is less than one-sixth that of the United States. Yet Chavez chooses to send millions abroad in a petty attempt to embarrass the Bush administration while his own people wallow in poverty. Senator John Sununu put it this way:

"Hugo Chavez has used the recent spike in heating oil costs as an opportunity to grandstand on the world stage," said Sununu. "He is selling Venezuela's assets at cut-rate prices while his country languishes in poverty and essential infrastructure crumbles. This is a disgrace, and New Hampshire should take no part in such a tragic and misguided charade."

And why is it that states dominated by Democrats for decades (Massachusetts and New York) can't take care of those in need? Aren't they supposed to be the most compassionate and socially-minded of all? Why would they need help from Comrade Chavez?

"Freezing Americans, Venezuela Helping: (...)The employees at the Boston welfare office know that this year many people will freeze to death in their houses."

The report is the one-sided epitome of everything we have come to expect of the German media's useful idiot elite. America and Bush are predictably portrayed as uncaring, energy-wasting, neglectors of the poor while wreckless despots worldwide are given a free pass. Here's a translated excerpt:

"Help came, of all things, from someone who the Americans actually hate: From Venezuela's socialist President Chavez. He donated cheap heating oil - however just one delivery. 200 gallons, or a bit more than 750 liters - without the oil from Venezuela, many citizens in the northeast USA would be at an end. Because the one-time financial support of their own government has long been used up. The employees at the Boston welfare office know that this year many people will freeze to death in their houses. The Bush government has promised additional help but hasn't made the necessary monies available. John Drew from Boston's welfare office: "It's our natural disaster in this country. Now the cold winds are coming from Canada and the poor people are practically cut off from the energy supply. How are they supposed to survive?""

The poor would "be at an end" and "freeze to death"? How come masses of frozen corpses haven't been discovered in Northeastern states that did not receive the cheap Chavez oil? Hmmmm...

Conveniently, there is also no mention that Democratic opponents of President Bush and his party have long dominated New York and Massachusetts. Yet all the blame is comfortably heaped on the national government while local leftists like Joseph Kennedy are portrayed as heroic activists. Kennedy is interviewed on energy policy, but not a single representative of the Bush administration is presented to defend the government. And that isn't all. While introducing Kennedy, reporter Thomas Bergmann blatantly interjects his opinion into the report:

"Joseph Kennedy holds the unrestrained energy policy of the Bush government for fully mistaken."

The "unrestrained energy policy" of the Bush government? Unfortunately Mr. Bergmann never explains what he means by "unrestrained energy policy" nor does he offer viewers a single, specific policy example. Mr. Bergmann has probably never even heard of the last major energy bill signed by President Bush in August 2005. At the signing ceremony for the "Energy Policy Act" Bush had this to say:

"First, the bill makes an unprecedented commitment to energy conservation and efficiency -- an unprecedented commitment. The bill sets higher efficiency standards for federal buildings and for household products. It directs the Department of Transportation to study the potential for sensible improvements in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks and SUVs. It authorizes new funding for research into cutting-edge technologies that will help us do more with less energy.

The bill recognizes that America is the world's leader in technology, and that we've got to use technology to be the world's leader in energy conservation. The bill includes incentives for consumers to be better conservers of energy. If you own a home, you can receive new tax credits to install energy-efficient windows and appliances. If you're in the market for a car, this bill will help you save up to $3,500 on a fuel-efficient hybrid or clean-diesel vehicle. And the way the tax credit works is that the more efficient the vehicle is, the more money you will save. Energy conservation is more than a private virtue; it's a public virtue. And with this bill I sign today, America is taking the side of consumers who make the choice to conserve."

But hey, real facts and policies don't matter when German journalists report on the USA...perceptions do: Bush lied and people died. Americans are energy-wasting barbarians who reject the eternal virtues of social democracy. At the end of the report, Bergmann concludes:

"Now Americans are paying the piper for their decades of failure in energy policy."

Right on, those short-sighted Americans had it coming! And naturally there is absolutely no mention of the dire poverty of the Venezuelan people. Moderator Peter Mezger states that Venezuela and Chavez can "easily afford" the program because of high oil prices. After all, they are living in a haven of socialist contentment. So who are we to criticize? Who cares if over half the people live in poverty and a quarter live in extreme poverty. At least they don't have "amerikanische Verhaeltnisse," that oft abused German code-word for all that is supposedly wrong with America's social fabric. And that's all that really matters to the useful media idiots at ARD's "Weltspiegel."

Endnote: The same "Weltspiegel" program (from January 22) contained another brilliant report designed to shatter widely held stereotypes in Germany. Its focus? Bands of thieves in Poland. (Hattip: Michael K.)

Put away your Watergate knives. No scandal here. Move along people. Ok, so maybe the German intelligence service (known as the Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND) helped the United States select a bombing target here or there in 2003. But that doesn't mean a thing! It doesn't mean they broke their pledge to keep Germany out of Iraq. Case closed. Drop it!

That's the message published in a commentary currently on Germany's prominent state-run "tagesschau" news website. In the article, entitled "Two BND Agents Still Don't Make a War", author and ARD journalist Tobias Haeuser bends over backwards to downplay charges that the former Schroeder administration provided intelligence to the United States for the selection of targets during the Iraq War in 2003. He also unquestioningly accepts German Foreign Minister Steinmeier's (SPD) claim that the BND did not actively support American combat operations.

Of course if someone like Tony Blair, George W. Bush or Angela Merkel were ever accused of such high-level wrongdoing, Mr. Haeuser and his colleagues would be busily scraping the bottom of the investigative journalism barrel for any conceivable shred of evidence to substantiate the charges. They would be drooling with skepticism and ominously flashing their Watergate knives with the determination of hungry piranhas. But this is different: The red-green coalition government was ideologically aligned with the mainstream media like few German governments before it, particularly on the Iraq War. And despite its repeated failings, numerous German journalists continue to defend the Schroeder government like the loyal little vassals that they truly are. So when anyone starts to uncover uncomfortable facts about the former government that expose its obvious hypocrisy, an army of angry poodles like Mr. Haeuser quickly converge to bark away the charges before they are ever fully investigated.

And naturally Mr. Haeuser quickly identifies the true culprit behind the entire scandal. You guessed it: The United States. He writes:

"Two agents of the German intelligence agency stayed in Baghdad during the Iraq War in 2002 and did their jobs. They collected information on the Iraq War and informed the German federal government about the course of combat operations.

That is exactly their job. And they did that job: Foreign reconnaissance in Iraq, also during the war so that Germany could have a minimal degree of its own information on the course of the war. That is, in fact, the lesson from the false information from the US intelligence services on alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. (...)

The USA needs two German Agents?

The image is really quite ridiculous that the USA, with the most modern electronic war machinery in the world, would be dependent on the help of two German BND agents for locating targets for bomb attacks in Baghdad.

It is interesting, above all, where the speculation comes from that the BND supposedly actively helped the US military in the war. Of all places out of the USA, once again. When US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to Berlin a few weeks ago, the Washington Post published that the German government also supposedly knew about the illegal CIA flights and kidnappings. The plan worked, in Germany the discussion is only about the role of the German federal government and not about the real scandal: That the USA has people abducted and tortured.

"Another Track is Laid

This time the same plan. Before Angela Merkel's trip to Washington another track (to mislead the German media and public) is being laid again with this goal: The German Chancellor shouldn't even bother to make a fuss because the Germans were also involved in the Iraq War just as in the CIA affair. That is, however, by no means so."

Of course! The Washington Post (that bastion of conservatism) was in cahoots with the Bush administration all along to distract the German public from the real scandal. Why didn't anyone but Mr. Haeuser notice that! It was all part of one large, devious "plan" and it worked brilliantly. And now those cunning Americans are trying it again by planting allegations about the two BND agents in Iraq. How fortunate we are to have courageous German journalists to uncover these neocon machinations!

Ok. Is anyone else getting scared yet? Yes, this is considered "serious" German journalism. These sorts of wild fantasies and conspiracy theories about American "plans" are coming directly from the pen of a German journalist working at the main studio of Germany's state-sponsored flagship media outlet in Berlin. It doesn't get too much more "mainstream" than that. Can anyone guess how the German media might be having a negative impact on transatlantic relations now?

And, oh yeah, according to Mr. Haeuser it was the "false information from the US intelligence services" that led everyone to believe that Saddam had WMD. The Germans are just so far above that - no arrogant condescension on Mr. Haeuser's part there. Whoops! Just don't read the following information:

"And it wasn't just the United States that was concerned about Iraq's efforts. By 2002, British, Israeli and German intelligence services had also concluded that Iraq was probably far enough along in its nuclear weapons program that it would be able to put together one or more bombs at some point in the second half of this decade. The Germans were actually the most fearful of all—in 2001 they leaked their estimate that Iraq might be able to develop its first workable nuclear device in 2004."

But hey, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be distracted by little facts like that. After all, why should German journalists ever investigate German politicians when it is so obvious that America and Bush are really the center of "the plan" and the source of all the world's problems? Bark...bark...

Update #2: Sueddeutsche has the latest round of speculation on whether the BND story is all just one big "disinformation campaign of the Americans." Apparently Minister President for the state of Rheinland-Pfalz Kurt Beck (SPD), buys into the idea. He also happens to be up for reelection in two months.

2006 will be Kofi Annan's last year as UN Secretary General - and now already he is applauded by all sides. ... German UN ambassador (Gunter) Pleuger: "Kofi Annan is the most impressive and most successful of the five Secretaries General I worked with ... the UN is equated with the person Kofi Annan."Martina Buttler, New York Radio Correspondent for ARD (Largest German Public Broadcasting Organization)

"The core of the criticism against us here and in other, more extensive emails is from my point of view: The bringers of bad news are often unpopular. The facts reported on by Panorama are namely hardly brought into question – no wonder, they are true. Instead of founded criticism, some hope to use the anti-Americanism accusation to create the impression of substance."

The answer, written by Panorama editor Volker Steinhoff, and posted in the Panorama forum, goes on to cite comments left by our readers (NOT by us) to show how invalid our criticism supposedly is. But those comments have nothing to do with our criticism nor did we author them. It would be as if we criticized Panorama's arguments by pointing out comments left in their forum by total strangers. Steinhoff continues:

"Much more troubling than the lack of differentiation of the criticism is its understanding of the law: A basic pillar of humanistic democracies is the right to life. Whether it was a "mercy shooting" or not is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT in line with an enlightened understanding of the law."

Unfortunately, Mr. Steinhoff (co-author of the Panorama report) obviously chooses to misrepresent or ignore (something he is obviously very good at) what we said in our first article. Instead he again relies on comments that we did not author in our comments section. Here is what we actually wrote on that point in our original post (bold in original):

"Let's be very clear: Maynulet's actions were absolutely indefensible and we are not trying to excuse them in any way. But when all of the facts of this particular case are presented to observers in a fair and sober light, the punishment meted out to Maynulet no longer seems "incomprehensible," though one could certainly still argue that the punishment was too light."

In any case, this is the classic defense we expected from Panorama. Instead of admitting that they made gross omissions, the staff writes that all of the facts presented are true and that we at Medienkritik are shooting the messenger with unsubstantiated claims of anti-Americanism. It may well be that the individual facts presented in the report are true, but, by themselves, they obviously do not tell the entire story in a fair, comprehensive and balanced manner.

Clearly, the overall story told by Panorama is not true because it is simply and undeniably incomplete. By grossly omitting facts vital to understanding the case, the television magazine has badly failed to properly and completely inform its audience. Furthermore, Mr. Steinhoff clearly seeks to further distract readers from our main critique by pointing to comments not belonging to the authors of this blog.

Here, again, are the key omissions that Panorama refuses to acknowledge:

1. First of all, the man shot and killed in the incident, identified as Karim Hassan Abed Ali al-Haleji, was a driver for an aide of Muqtada Al-Sadr's Shiite movement and a paramilitary member of that militia. This is the same Al-Sadr movement responsible for the killing of numerous US soldiers and major combat throughout Iraq. At the time of the incident, Hassan was at the wheel of a black sedan which led Maynulet's company on a chase in the midst of a hotbed of insurgent activity. Maynulet's men fired on the vehicle, wounding both passengers inside.

2. And that brings us to the second critical point omitted by Panorama: According to the report of an on-scene medic, the Iraqi driver had already suffered traumatic fatal wounds in the initial exchange before Maynulet ever approached and shot him. According to a CBS news report:

"During Maynulet's Article 32 hearing -- the equivalent of a civilian grand jury investigation -- witnesses testified that the driver had been shot in the head when Maynulet saw him. A fellow officer said Maynulet told him he then shot the man out of compassion. (...)

When a medic pulled the driver out of the car, it was clear he had suffered critical injuries, with part of his skull blown away, according to testimony during the Article 32 hearing held June 25-Oct. 14 in Baghdad and Hanau, Germany.

Maynulet's fellow officer, 1st Lt. Colin Cremin, testified that Maynulet told him he then shot the Iraqi in the base of the neck or the back of the head.

"It was something he didn't want to do, but it was the compassionate response," Cremin testified. "It was definitely the humane response."

A U.S. drone surveillance aircraft caught the killing was on video."

So why does Panorama fail to report that part of the driver's skull was blown away and that he was covered in his own brain mass (and essentially dead) before Maynulet ever approached and shot him? A BBC report tells of testimony in the case stating that the Iraqi driver "had half his brain hanging out" when Maynulet shot him. And thirdly,why does Panorama never mention the "mercy killing" aspect to the story and simply label the incident a virtual "execution"?

I want to openly challenge Mr. Steinhoff and his colleagues at Panorama to FULLY explain the obvious and gross omissions that they made in their report "Torture and Killing without Punishment - Exonerations for US Soldiers" as outlined in points A and B above. We will publish any answer in full on this site. And please stop hiding behind comments left on this site that have nothing to do with our criticism Sir!

It is particularly ironic that Panorama chooses to say that we are shooting the messenger. In fact the very opposite is true. This is more of the same blank denial that we have grown accustomed to in the German media. And that is why we will continue to expose them every time.

Just so Mr. Steinhoff and his friends at Panorama are clear on one thing: We at Davids Medienkritik are not going anywhere. We will tirelessly continue to expose misrepresentations and omissions made at Panorama and elsewhere in the German media and we don't ever plan to stop.

Endnote: Since Mr. Steinhoff was so interested in the comments on our site, I thought I'd translate one of the comments left in the Panorama forum on the "Torture and Killing without Punishment - Exonerations for US Soldiers" piece:

"Torturing and Killing Without Penalty

The report shows (among other things through the critical evaluation of American observers themselves) that the military is dangerous as soon as it removes itself from the control of the democratic state. One has to ask how powerful the control of democracy in the USA still is at all. This large and once model nation is, through religious fundamentalism and arbitrary leadership of the military, increasingly becoming a danger to the world!"

If only the person who wrote this knew the extent to which he was being lied to by Panorama...and the sad part is that nearly 3 million Germans viewed the report on television. (WATCH THE VIDEO HERE)

The report has an emotionally powerful, highly charged opening. It begins with chilling music and shows us the family of the man shot by Maynulet squatting around the dead man's portrait in a dark, dimly-lit room. A small Iraqi girl is shown with tragic eyes peering at out from behind the television screen. The moderator's deep, solemn voice can be heard in the background:

"Mourning for the father. A targeted killing, virtually an execution. From the process they know: The father's car was shot at by US soldiers. He was still alive, badly wounded. Then came an American and shot him in the head - two times."

The next thing shown is a corpse wrapped in white sheets being carried away. The dead man's brother is shown appealing to all Americans for justice.

German viewers are told the story of an Iraqi father whose automobile is shot at by American soldiers. Almost no context is provided on the initial shooting. Somehow it all seems tragic, random and violent. Random that is until the American "killer" Maynulet shot the Iraqi father to death in cold blood. A senseless act of violence.

The next thing German viewers see is Maynulet, labeled "the killer" by Panorama, leaving a military courtroom in Germany a free man. His only punishment a discharge from the Army. Viewers are shown Maynulet's family praising his release, calling their son an "American hero" of whom they are proud and lauding the "American justice system" while the family of the man shot to death is coldly brushed aside despite their impassioned pleas.

This Panorama report is a particularly sinister case of media gone bad. It is the case of gross omission and bias. It is a case of journalists as propagandists inspiring hate against entire nations. As proof that Americans continue to "briskly" torture in Iraq and elsewhere, we are first offered the Maynulet case as outlined above. But, as is so often the case, a number of critical facts are left-out or intentionally ignored:

First of all, the man shot and killed in the incident, identified as Karim Hassan Abed Ali al-Haleji, was a driver for an aide of Muqtada Al-Sadr's Shiite movement and a paramilitary member of that militia. This is the same Al-Sadr movement responsible for the killing of numerous US soldiers and major combat throughout Iraq. At the time of the incident, Hassan was at the wheel of a black sedan which led Maynulet's company on a chase in the midst of a hotbed of insurgent activity. Maynulet's men fired on the vehicle, wounding both passengers inside.

And that brings us to the second critical point omitted by Panorama: According to the report of an on-scene medic, the Iraqi driver had already suffered traumatic fatal wounds in the initial exchange before Maynulet ever approached and shot him. According to a CBS news report:

"During Maynulet's Article 32 hearing -- the equivalent of a civilian grand jury investigation -- witnesses testified that the driver had been shot in the head when Maynulet saw him. A fellow officer said Maynulet told him he then shot the man out of compassion. (...)

When a medic pulled the driver out of the car, it was clear he had suffered critical injuries, with part of his skull blown away, according to testimony during the Article 32 hearing held June 25-Oct. 14 in Baghdad and Hanau, Germany.

Maynulet's fellow officer, 1st Lt. Colin Cremin, testified that Maynulet told him he then shot the Iraqi in the base of the neck or the back of the head.

"It was something he didn't want to do, but it was the compassionate response," Cremin testified. "It was definitely the humane response."

A U.S. drone surveillance aircraft caught the killing was on video."

So why does Panorama fail to report the testimony that part of the driver's skull was blown away and that he was covered in his own brain mass before Maynulet ever approached and shot him? A BBC report tells of testimony in the case stating that the Iraqi driver "had half his brain hanging out" when Maynulet shot him. And thirdly,why does Panorama never mention the "mercy killing" aspect of the testimony and simply label the incident a virtual "execution"?

Why? Because had Panorama mentioned those mitigating circumstances in its report, it wouldn't have achieved the same emotional outrage from its viewers. Such inconvenient details wouldn't have meshed well with images of Iraqi children and their murdered father. The report wouldn't have provoked the same angry, emotional response against the US military establishment and President Bush. And that is what Panorama was really after.

Let's be very clear: Maynulet's actions were absolutely indefensible and we are not trying to excuse them in any way. But when all of the facts of this particular case are presented to observers in a fair and sober light, the punishment meted out to Maynulet no longer seems "incomprehensible," though one could certainly still argue that the punishment was too light.

The point is that this Panorama report is yet another example of grossly insincere, unprofessional journalism that is essentially thinly-veiled propaganda. The truth is abandoned for ideology and emotionalism. Millions of Germans are told the Maynulet story through the distorted lens of profoundly biased media and many of them will believe they are getting the full storyand the entire truth...but they aren't.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of this all is that programs like Panorama on large public networks like ARD are funded by the German state through billions of Euros in mandatory taxes levied on everyone owning a television and/or radio in Germany with few exceptions. And anti-American campaign journalism has become a regular fixture of German public broadcasting. One has to wonder why the US Embassy is not speaking out more about outrageous programs such as this.

Note: Panorama's editors can be reached at: panorama@ndr.de. The editor responsible for this piece is Volker Steinhoff who produced it along with reporter John Goetz.

Click the link below to read further comments from one of our readers on this program:

A fictional crime drama based on the premise that the Bush administration ordered the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington aired this week on German state television, prompting the Green Party chairman to call for an investigation. "I think absolutely nothing of the conspiracy theory that has been hawked in this series. I hope this particular TV movie will be discussed very critically at the next supervisory board meeting of ARD [state television]," said Green Party Chairman Reinhard Buetikofer, who acknowledged that he had not seen the show.

According to the plot, which was seen by approximately 7 million Germans, the dead man had been trained to be one of the September 11 pilots but was left behind, only to be tracked down and killed by CIA or FBI assassins. The woman, who says in the program that the September 11 attacks were instigated by the Bush family for oil and power, then is targeted, presumably to silence her. The drama concludes with the German detectives accepting the truth of her story as she eludes the U.S. government hit men and escapes to safety in an unnamed Arab country. As ludicrous as it may sound to most Americans, the tale has resonance in Germany, where fantastic conspiracy theories often are taken as fact. Many Germans think, for example, that the 1969 moon landing was faked, and a poll published in the weekly Die Zeit showed that 31 percent of Germans younger than 30 "think that there is a certain possibility that the U.S. government ordered the attacks of 9/11." In fact, three of the hijackers who seized control of commercial airlines on September 11, 2001, including

The ultimate insult to our intelligence: Germany's primary state-run television station (ARD) alleges the Bush family's involvement in the 9/11 WTC attacks. I watched the Sunday night prime-time "Tatort" movie in stunned disbelief. "Tatort" is an enormously popular murder-mystery series that has been running in Germany for 35 years.

The German left has found a new medium to slander America. In the past it could rely on the talk show circuit for a readily available platform to accuse the United States of Germany’s problem du jour and thereby satisfy its need for notoriety. But Germany has deeper problems these days and talk shows of late have been devoted to Chancellor Schroeder’s rapidly declining hopes for re-election amidst the crumbling welfare economy known as the EU. So to counter the loss of audience the German left has taken a page out of Hollywood and created fictional TV characters to say what it is no longer given airtime to lecture about in person. Interestingly, the message the German left weaves into its fiction says more about the left than about its favorite subject.

On the evening of June 5th 2005 the state-funded network ARD broadcast a 90-minute episode of Tatort. The word means “scene of the crime” and it is a long-running murder mystery series watched by millions. The episode ("Scheherazade") concerned a woman who claimed that a man was murdered in her apartment. Not just any man, however.

He was one of the pilots on September 11,2001. According to the story, he failed to board the plane he was supposed to hijack in Boston and he returned to Germany instead. The mystery revolved around the fact that in spite of the woman’s murder claim, the police could not find a corpse and the two detectives on the case spent most of the show trying to determine whether the woman’s story was believable.

Throughout the mystery the woman was chased by groups of unidentified villains who were out to kill her because she had a CD with photographic evidence of the Boston hijacker who got away. The subtext of the plot was her explicitly stated allegation that 9-11 was instigated by the Bush family for oil and power.The hit men were CIA/FBI types and the TV audience is led to believe they were the ones who killed the pilot and were now after the woman to insure her story would never be known. The conclusion of the mystery has the detectives believing her story as she escapes the CIA by fleeing to an unnamed Arab country.

There are many urban myths that qualify as conventional wisdom in Germany, especially among people under 30. That the 1969 moon landing was faked goes without saying. Now the German left wants you to know that it was Bush who planned and executed 9-11. Michael Moore, your residency papers are waiting.

TV audience for Tatort's "Scheherazade" was 7.27 million (source: ARD). That's 7.27 million Germans more who know about the Bush family's evil empire...

Update: Bill from "Dawson's Danube" has watched "Scheherazade", too. And he's very frank about it. He calls the Tatort movie "sickening and pathetic":

Simply put: German public broadcasting, which is supported by a mandatory fee that all televison owners must pay, celebrated the 600th episode of one of their most successful programs by broadcasting a story that fully and unambiguously supported 9/11 conspiracy theories that place the President of the United States and those around him at the center of a plot to purposely bring about "their" Middle East war.... the show's producers always included beautiful and melancholy Arab music... Message: Arabia/Islam good, innocent, peaceful, soft, misunderstood, unfortunate; America powerful, wicked, murderous, deceitful, evil.

His posting goes into much more detail of the movie than ours; you need to read it all.

BTW: if you have an urge to express your enthusiasm (or utter lack thereof) about ARD's interpretation of 9/11, Lars Jacob from ARD's press department is the one to contact. Here's his e-mail address. Please refer to "Tatort 'Scheherazade'".

Here is another commentary by our friend DL from Heidelberg. He addresses the need for more competition in the German news market place.

It’s Time for Independent Media in Germany

When NATO pursued its decision to field Pershing II missiles during the mid-eighties, the peace movement that gave birth to the Green party was the subject of Germany’s nightly news. Without fail the peace movement was always referred to as “die sogenannte Friedensbewegung” – “the so-called peace movement” as though it were pretending to be something it wasn’t. The reason was simple. Then Chancellor Kohl feared the growing opposition rooted in German pacifism. So state-funded media became a tool in his battle to shape public opinion.

Twenty years later and neither the system nor the methods have changed. Germany’s main national television stations, ARD and ZDF, are financed through tax revenue. Germans pay a monthly fee on every